The High Court · 2025

1. Yadala Satyanarayana Memorial Educational Society, l?ritlg its office €t # 204, Rahmin Pla2a, ll Floor, Near Taj tvlahal Hotel, Abids, Hyderabad Rep. by its Secretary Mr. Y V Gopala Krishna Murthy

2. ACE Enoineerinq Colleqe, Sv. No. 175 and 181, Ankushapur (V) Ghatkesar 1M), RarigaredOi oistridt Re[ by its Secretary Mr. Mr. Y V Gopala Krishna Murthy

3. Mr Y V Gopala Krishna Murthy, S/o Late Subba Rao, Aged,about 62 years, R/o ACE Engineering Colleg6, Sy. No. 175 and 181, Ankushapur (V), Ghatkesar (l\t!), Rangareddy District. ...APPELLANTS/wRIT PETITIONERS AND '1 . State of Telangana, Higher Education Department, Secretariat Buildings, . Hyderabad, Rep. by its Principal Secretary. 2. Telanqana Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee, 2nd Floor, JNA and FAU "Campus, Opp. Mahavir Hospital, Mahaveer Marg, ltilasab Tank, Hyderabad. Rep. by its Member Secretary. '

3. Telangana State Council for Higher Education' 1't Floor, JNTU tvlasab Tank Camp"us, N4ahaveer l\ilarg, Opp. Mahavir Hospital, Masab Tank, Hyderabad' Represented by its SecretarY.

4. Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Hyderabad. Rep. by its Registrar' 5. The Convenor. TG EAPCET 2025, Sankethika Vidya Bhavan lrilasab Tank Hvderabad - 500 028. ...RES'.NDENTS/RES'.NDENTS IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to permit the Petitioner lnstitution to collect the fee of Rs. 1,30,000/- per annum for the B.Tech course for the block period of AY 2025-26 lo 2027 -28 including by suspending the effect and operation of G'O' Ms No 26 dated 30.06.2025 issued by Respondent No. 1 and the order dated 1 1.o7 .2025 passed by the Learned Single Judge in lA No. 1 and 2 of 2025 in WP No '19935 of 2025 pending disposal of the above Writ Appeal. l IA NO: 2 OF 2025 PetitionUnderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesStatedin theaffidavitfiledinsupportofthepetition,theHighcourtmaybepleasedto direct Respondent No 5 to update and reflect' in respect of the Petitioner lnstitution, the fee of Rs. 1,30,000/- per annum for the B'Tech course' for the blockperiodofA.Y.2025-26toA.Y,2027-2B.ontheofficialportal/websrteofTG EAPCET 2025 pending disposal of the above Writ Appeal Counsel for the Appellants: SRI TARUN G' REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent No'1: SRI S' RAHUL REDDY' SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER REPRESENTING ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL . Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI P' SRI RAGHU RAM' SENIOR COUNSEL REPRESENTING SRI G. CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY, STANDING COUNSEL Counsel for the Respondent No'3 to 5: SRI PERI PRABHAKAR' STANDING COUNSEL SRI A.P. SURESH KUMAR, STANDING COUNSEL WRIT APPEA LNO :754 OF 2025 WritAppealunderclausel5oftheLettersPatentPreferredagainsttheorderdated 11-07-2o25inl.A.No.1&2oI2025inWPNo'lgg5Tof2025onthefileoftheHigh Court Between: Guru Nanak Educational Soclety, Having its office at 82 2nd Floor'^Above Bata. Vikarmpuri colony,'X;rkli,;'"S;cJnderabad Rep by its General Secretary Mr.'Gagandeep Singh Kohli' Guru Nanak lnstitutions Technical Campus, tr/anchal Mandal' Khanapur Virlis",'Ibilhirp-it*.'-ni.Jgi"dJv nep bv its Secretary tilr Gagandeep Singh Kohli. Mr. Gaqandeep Singh Kohh, S/o Late Tavinder Singh Kohli' Aged about 43 ;J"; Hki ;:#-aaii] sijff Rb; Rocx rand Karkhana secunderabad 2 J ...APPELLANTS/WRIT PETITIONERS AND TheStateofTelangana,HigherEducationDepartment,secretariatBuildings, Hyderabad. Rep. by its Principal Secretary' l

2. Telangana Admission and Fee Regulatory. Committee' 2nd Floor' JNA- and 'Mahaveer Marg' Masab [ank' FAU camous opp iirnaun notp'tii, Hyderabad. Rep. by its Member Secretary'

3. Telanqana State Council for Higher Education' 1'' Floor' JNTU Masab Tank " c"rfi;'r:,''fu;i,;;";;"til;;b:-oppl Na'na'i' Hospital' Masab rank' Hvderabad Represented bY its Secretary.

4. Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Hyderabad. Rep. by its Registrar- 5. The Convenor, TG EAPCET 2025, Sankethika Vidya Bhavan Masab Tank ...RESP.NDENTS/RESP.NDENTS Hyderabad - 500 028. IA NO: 1 OF 2025 PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct RespondentNo'5toupdateandreflect'inrespectofthePetitionerlnstitution,the fee of Rs. 1,51,0O0/- per annum for the B Tech course' for the block period of A Y- 2025-26 to A.Y. 2027-28. on the official portal/website of TG EAPCEI 2025 pending disposal of the above Writ Appeal' IAN O:2OF 2O25 PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatrnthecircumstancesstatedtn the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct theRespondentstopermitthePetitionerlnstitutionstocollectthefeeofRs. 1,51,000/- per annum for the B Tech course' Rs g0'000i- per annum for the M.Tech course, Rs 79,000/- per annum for the MBA Course' Rs 1'45'0001 per annurn for the B. Pharma course, Rs. 1,.10,0001per annum for the course of M Pharmacy and Rs. 1,54,000/- for the course of Pharma D for the block period of A.Y.2025-26 lo 2027 -28 including by suspending the effect and operation of G O' Ms. No. 26 dated 30.06 2025 issued by Respondent No 1 and the order dated 11.07.2025 passed by the Learned Single Judge in lA No 1 and 2 of 2025 in WP No. 1 9957 of 2025 pending disposal of the above Writ Appeal' Counsel for the Appellants: SRI TARUN G' REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No'1: SRI S' RAHUL REDDY' SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER REPRESENTING ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL 6 Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI P. SRI RAGHU RAM' SENIOR COUNSEL REPRESENTING SRI G. CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY' STANDING COUNSEL Counsel for the Respondent No.3 to 5: SRI PERI PRABHAKAR' STANDING COUNSEL SRI A.P. SURESH KUMAR, STANDING COUNSEL WRIT APPEAL NO: 758 OF 2025 writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Preferred Against the order Dated 11.o7.2025inl.A.No',1&2of2025inW.P,No.20O02of2025onthefileoftheHigh Court Between: 1 2 Viqnana Jvothi Society, VNR VJIET Camp.us, ,Gandimaisamma-!4yqqyr Hi[ii;;; "h-oao,--eJihupaltv, Niledchal'tvl;lkajslri District 500090 iidprei6nteU by iis Generai Secretary Kode Durga Prasad' VNR Vionana Jvothi lnstitute of Engineering and Technolo-g-y- -Vignana 'lyothi Naoar. Praqathi Naqar, Nizampet (S.O) Hyderabad 5UUUgu F(epresenleo by its Autho-rised Sighatory Arutla Prashanth ...APPELLANTS AND 1 2 The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary' Higher Education Department. Secretariat, Hyderabad' Telanoana Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee, 2nd Flo-or' JNA and ixu"'c;;;;;. oop. Minrvii Ho"spital,' vlahaveer I\/arg, Masab Tank' Hyderabad Represbhted by its Member Secretary' 4 TGEAPCET 2025, JNTUH UCESTH, Kukatpally Hyderabad

3. Convenor, 500085. Telanoana State Council for Higher Education. 1'' Floot. JNTU t\ilasab Tank i;;;1; b;; 'irr"r,rrii no.pita"l, Mahaveer lVlarg' Masab Tank' Hvderabad Represented by its Secretary. Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Hyderabad Represented by its Registrar' ...RESP.NDENTS E IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed an support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspendtheoperationofthelmpugnedorderdatedlltoTl2o25inWPNo.20002 ot 2O25 disposing off the lnterlocutory Application being lA No.2 of 2025 in WP 1 No 20002 of 2025 by holding that the writ Petitioners (Appellant herein) are not entitled to interrm relief lA NO: 2 OF 2025 PetitionUnderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to permit the Appellant lnstitution to collect the fee of Rs. 2,IO,OOOI- per student per annum for the B Tech course as approved and acceptedbytheRespondentNo.2fortheblockperiodof2025-20251o2027-2028 without reference to the G.O. Ms No. 26 dated 3oto6t2o25 including but not limited to directing the Respondent No 3 to include a notification on the TGEAPCET website to notify the students through counselling as regards the collectable fee ofRs.2,20,000i-perstudentperannumfortheAppellantlnstitutionintheblock period of 2025-2026 to 2027-2028 in respect of the B Tech course' Counsel for the Appellants: SRI AVINASH DESAI, SENIOR COUNSEL REPRESENTING SRI M. PRANAV Counsel for the Respondent No'1: SRI S. RAHUL REDDY, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER REPRESENTING ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL CounselfortheRespondentNo.2:SRIP'SRIRAGHURAM'SENIORCOUNSEL REPRESENTING SRI G. CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY, STANDING COUNSEL Counsel for the Respondent No.3 to 5: SRI PERI PRABHAKAR' STANDING COUNSEL SRI A.P. SURESH KUMAR, STANDING COUNSEL WRIT APPEAL NO 759 0F 2025 WritAppealunderclausel5oftheLettersPatentAppeatPreferredAgainstorder Dated11.o7.2025l.A'No.1&2of2025inW'P.No.19999of2025onthefileofthe High Court. Between: 1 Gunamaoalli Pulla Reddy Charities Trust' H No. 6-3-879/13' Green Lands H;;;: ?i"rffip"f irviEirnro sooolo' Represented bY its authorised ;iil;i",y 6 S,iloy, rt"oovwlo P. Ravi Kanth Reddv, aged about43 vears 8 AND 1 Z 3 4 G. Narayanamma lnstitute of Technology and Science (for women)' Autonom6us, Shaikpet, Hyderabad - 5001 04. Represented by its authorised signatory G. Srividya Redciy Wo. P. Ravi Kanth Reddy, aged about 43 years. ...APPELLANTS ' The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. Telangana Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee, 2nd Floor, JNA and FAU tampus, Opp. Mahavir Hospital, fVlahaveer N4arg, Itrlasab Tank, Hyderabad Represented by its lt/lember Secretary Convenor, TGEAPCET 2025, JNTUH UCESTH, Kukatpally Hyderabad - 500085. Telangana State Council for Higher Education, 1st Floor, JNTU Masab Tank Camp"us, Opp. Mahavir Hospitil, Mahaveer fVlarg, tvlasab Tank' Hyderabad Represented by its Secretary. Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Hyderabad Represented by its Registrar ..RESPONDENTS lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the lmpugned Order dated 'l 1.O7 2025 in W.P.No.19999 of 2025 disposing off the lnterlocutory Application being lA No.2 of 2025 in WP No. 19999 of 2025 by holding that the writ Petitioners (Appellant herein) are not entitled to interim relief . lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to permit the Appellant lnstitution to collect the fee of Rs' 1,95,000/- per student per annum for the B.Tech course as approved and accepted by the Respondent No.2 for the block period of 2025-2025 lo 2027-2028 without reference to the G.o.il/ls No. 26 dated 30.06.2025 including but not limited to directing the Respondent No.3 to include a notification on the TGEAPCET Website to notify the students through Counselling as regards the collectable fee 9 of Rs. 1,95,000/- per student per annum for the Appellant lnstitution in the block period of 2025-2026 lo 2027 -2028 in respect of the B Tech course' Counsel for the Appellants: SRI AVINASH DESAI, SENIOR COUNSEL REPRESENTING SRI M. PRANAV Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI S. RAHUL REDDY, S-PECII GOVERNMENT PLEADER REPRESENTING ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL CounselfortheRespondentNo.2:SRIP.SRIRAGHURAM,SENIORCOUNSEL REPRESENTING SRI G. CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY, STANDING COUNSEL Counsel for the Respondent No.3 to 5: SRI PERI PRABHAKAR' STANDING COUNSEL SRI A.P. SURESH KUMAR, STANDING COUNSEL WRIT APPEAL NO: 763 OF 2025 writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Preferred Against the order Dated 11.07 .2025 in l.A.Nos.1 & 2 ot 2025 in w.P.No 19956 of 2025 on the file of the High Court Between: .l Gokaraiu Ranoa Raiu Educational society, Having its registered office at 40- iS-l+, 'Brindaian Ci:lony Vijayawada AP 520010 Rep by rts Admrnrslralrve Officer Mr. P AYub Khan

2. Gokaraiu Rangaraju lnstitute of Engineering and. Technology' Bachupally' - [r"r|ijl}v, il,i"irbio Cep UV its Adfrrinistratrve Officer A/r. P Ayub Khan 3 tr/lr. P Avub Khan. s/o Khasim Kham, Aged about 61. .years, R/o Gokaraju " [rirrrrtiii Engin;"iing College, Bachupally-, Kukatpally, Hyderabad ...APPELLANTS/WRIT PETITIONERS AND 1 State of Telangana, Higher Education Department, Secretariat Buildings' Hyderabad, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Telanoana Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee 2nd Floor' JNA and ix'fi t;ffi:,"'"<ipii rr,trr'l;ii noiprtat,'l\4ahaveer ltilarg, IVlasab Tank' Hyderabad. Rep. by its lvlember Secretary' Tetanoana State Council for Higher Education, 1't Floor' JNTU Masab Tank : bpp" Itrla havir Hosprtal, Masab ra nk' Hvderabad' c;fi ;'rt i,;i;;";il;;s Represented by its Secretary' Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Hyderabad Rep by its Registrar' 2 J 4 l0

5. The Convenor, TG EAPCET 2025' Sankethika Vidya Bhavan Masab Tank Hyderabad - 500 028. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IA NO :1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated tn the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct RespondentNo.5toupdateandreflect,inrespectofthePetitionerlnstitution.the fee of Rs. 1,80,000/- per annum for the B Tech course' for the block period of A Y 2025-26 to A.Y. 2027-28, on the offrcial portal/website of TG EAPCEI 2025 pending disposal of the above Writ Appeal' IA NO:2OF 2O25 Petition under Section '151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the"petition' the High Court may be pleased to permit the Petitioner lnstitution to collect the fee of Rs' 1'80'0001 per annum for the B.Tech course for the block period of AY 2025-26 to 2027 -28 including by suspending the effect and operation of G O Ms No 26 dated 30 06 2025 issued by Respondent No. 1 and the order dated 11 07 2025 passed by the Learned Single Judge in l.A. No. 1 and 2 of 2025 in WP No 19956 of 2025 pending disposal of the above Writ APPeal' Counsel for the Appellants: SRI TARUN G' REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No'1: SRI S' RAHU-LREDDY' SPECI;T GOVERNMENT PLEADER REPRESENTING ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondent No'2: SRI P' SRI RAGHU RAM' SENIOR COUNSEL NEPNiSLNTITG SRI G. CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY, STANDING COUNSEL Counsel for the Respondent No'3 to 5: SRI PERI PRABHAKAR' STANDING COUNSEL SRI A.P. SURESH KUMAR, STANDING COUNSEL II WRIT APPEAL NO: 764 OF 2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order dated 16.07.2025 in I.A.No.'l & 2 of 2025 in W.P.No.19941 of 2025 on the file of the High Court. Between:

1. Keshav Memorial Technical Educational Society, Having its office at 3-2-849 Station Road, Kachiguda, Hyderabad. Rep. by its Secretary [t/lr. Neil Gogte 2. Neil Gogte lnstitute of Technology, Sy. No, 35, Kachvani Singaram Village, Uppal, Ghatkesar Mandal, Rangareddy - 500088 Rep. by its Secretary Mr. Neil Gogte '

3. Mr. Neil Gogte, S/o Late BS Gogte, Aged about 62 years, R/o 3-2'849 ' Station Road, Kachiguda, Hyderabad. ...APPELLANTS/wRIT PETITIONERS AND 1 State of Telangana, Higher Education Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Principal Secretary. a 1 4 Telangana Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee, 2"d Floor, JNA&FAU Camp-us, Opp. Mahavir Hospital, lrr'lahaveer Marg. A/lasab Tank, Hyderabad- Rep- by its Member Secretary- Telangana State Council for Higher Education, 1't Floor, JNTU Masab Tank Camp-us, [vlahaveer lVlarg, Opp. Mahavir Hospital, Itrlasab Tank, Hyderabad. Represented by its Secretary. Osmania University, Hyderabad. Rep. by its Registrar. The Convenor, TG EAPCET 2025, Sankethika Vidya Bhavan Masab Tank Hyderabad - 500 028. ,..RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct Respondent No. 5 to update and reflect, in respect of the Petitioner lnstitution, the fee of Rs. 1,50,000/- per annum for the B.Tech course, for the block period of A.Y' 2025-26 to A.Y. 2027-28, on the official portal/website of TG EAPCET 2025 pending disposal of the above Writ Appeal. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 2 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to permit the Petitioner lnstitution to collect the fee of Rs. 1,50,000/- per annum for the B.Tech course for the block period of A.Y 2025-26 to 2027 -28 including by suspending the effect and operation of G.O. Ms No.26 dated 30,06.2025 issued by Respondent No 1 and the order dated 16.07 2025 passed by the Learned Single Judge in lA No 1 and 2 of 2025 in WP No. 19941 of 2025 pending disposal of the above Writ Appeal. Counsel for the Appellants: SRI TARUN G. REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI S. RAHUL REDDY, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER REPRESENTING ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI P. SRI RAGHU RAM, SENIOR COUNSEL REPRESENTING SRI G. CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY, STANDING COUNSEL Counsel for the Respondent No.3 & 5: SRI PERI PRABHAKAR, SRI A.P. SURESH KUMAR, STANDING COUNSEL STANDING COUNSEL Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI M. SRINIVAS REDDY, STANDING COUNSEL WRIT APPEAL NO: 765 OF 2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Preferred Against Order Dated 1 1.07.2025 in l.A No.'l & 2 of 2025 in W P.No.1 9942 of 2025 on the file of the High Court. Between: 1 Gokaraju Ranga Raju Educational Society, Having its registered office at 40- 15-14, Brindavan Colony Vijayawada AP 520010 Rep. by its Administrative Officer lt/lr. P Ayub Khan 2 Qokaraju Lailavathi Engineering College, Bachupally, Kukatpally, Hyderabad 3. Mr.. P Ayub Khan S/o Khasim^Kham, Aggd about 61 years, R/o Gokaraju Rep. by its Administrative Officer lvlr. P Ayub Khan Lailavathi Engineering College, Bachupally-, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. ...APPELLANTSMRIT PETITIONERS l3 AND 1 State of Telangana, Higher Education Department' Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Telangana Admission and Fee Regulatory -Committee , 2'd Floor, JNA and in[ timpus, Opp. Manavir Hoispital,- Mahaveer Marg, Masab Tank, Hyderabad. Rep- by its Member Secretary. Telangana State Council for Higher Education, 1't Floor, JNTU IVIasab Tank Cimpti, Mrh"u""r. Marg, Oppl Mahavir Hospital, lVlasab Tank, Hyderabad Represented by its Secretary. Osmania Unrversity, Hyderabad. Rep. by its Registrar. The Convenor. TG EAPCET 2025, Sankethika Vidya Bhavan Masab Tank Hyderabad - 500 028. 2 4 E . ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated tn the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct Respondent No. 5 to update and reflect, in respect of the Petitioner lnstitution the fee of Rs.90,0001 per annum for the B.Tech course, for the block period of A.Y 2025-26toA.Y.2027-28'ontheofficialportal/websiteofTGEAPCEr2025 pending disposal of the above Writ Appeal. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the H.igh Court may be pleased to permit the Petitioner lnstitution to collect the fee of Rs.90,000/- per annum for the B.Tech course for the block period of A.Y. 2025-26 to 2027 -28 including by suspending the effect and operation of G.o. I\4s. No. 26 dated 30.06.2025 issued byRespondentNo.landtheorderdatedlltoTt2o25passedbytheLearned Singte Judge in LA.No.'1 and 2 of 2025 in wP No. 19942 of 2025 pending disposal of the above Writ APPeal. Counsel for the Appellants: SRI TARUN G- REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI S. RAHUL REDDY, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER REPRESENTING ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL l4 Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI P' SRI RAGHU RAM' SENIOR COUNSEL REPRESENTING SRI G. CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY' STANDING COUNSEL Counsel for the Respondent No.3 & 5: SRI PERI PRABHAKAR' SRI A.P. SURESH KUMAR, STANDING COUNSEL STANDING COUNSEL Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI M' SRINIVAS REDDY' STANDING COUNSEL WRIT A,PPEAL NO: 766 OF 2025 WritAppealunderclausel5oftheLettersPatentPreferredAgainstorderDated 16.07.2025 in t.A No. 1 & 2 0t 2025 in w.P.No. 19947 0f 2025 0n the file of the High Court Between: Z 1 Keshav Memorial Technical Eduoational Society, Having its office at 3-2-849 Station Road, Kachiguda, ilv;;;t;J n"p-ov'tt Secrei6ry Mr' Neil Gogte Keshav Memorial Engineering College. S.y, v-rrlgi' uppur, Ghatke"sar Secrbtary Mr Neil Gogte t\Ir. Neil Gogte, S/o Late BS Gogte, Aged about 62 years' R/o 3-2-849 Station Road, Kachiguda, Hyderabad N9 . 35' Kachvani Singaram rtrdo.hal'Malkajgiri - 500088 Rep by its -rt/riorr J - ' ' ...APPELLANTS/WRIT PETITIONERS AND 1 2 State of Telangana, Higher Education Department, Secretariat Buildings' Hyderabad, nep-. Oy its Principal Secretary' Telanoana Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee, 2nd Floor' JNA and iffi tffi;;, "-cip"p n,'"r'.,rrii Hoipit"t,'Mahaveer trilarg' Masab Tank' Hyderabad. Reo. by its Member Secretary

3. Telanqana State Council for Higher Education,. '1'r Floor. JNTU tvlasab Tank " Ufl;'r:i'"i;iili"Ei"nrrig bppi trrtanivrr Hospital, Masab rank Hvderabad Represented bY its Secretary.

4. Osmania University, Hyderabad. Rep' by its Registrar' 5. The Convenor, TG EAPCET 2025, Sankethika Vidya Bhavan Masab Tank Hyderabad - 500 028. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS t5 IA NO: 't OF 2025 PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to drrect RespondentNo-5toUpdateandreflect,inrespectofthePetitionerlnstitution,the fee of Rs. 90,000/- per annum for the B Tech course, for the block period of A Y 2025-26toA.Y,2027-2E,ontheofficialportal/websiteofTGEAPCEI2025 pending disposal of the above Writ Appeal' lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dtrect theRespondentstopermitthePetitionerlnstitutiontocollectthefeeofRs, 90,000i- per annum for the B Tech course for the block period of A.Y. 2025-26 lo 2027 -28 including by suspending the effect and operation of G'O- Ms No' 26 dated 30.06.2025 issued by Respondent No' I and the order dated 1607 2025 passed by the Learned Single Judge in lA No l and 2 of 2025 in WP No 19947 of 2025 pending disposal of the above Writ Appeal' Counsel for the Appellants: SRI TARUN G' REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI S' RAHUL REDDY' SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER REPRESENTING ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondent No'2: SRI P' SRI RAGHU RAM' SENIOR COUNSEL REPRESENTING SRI G. CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY, STANDING COUNSEL Counsel for the Respondent No.3 & 5: SRI PERI PRABHAKAR' STANDING COUNSEL SRI A.P. SURESH KUMAR, STANDING COUNSEL Counsel for the Respondent No'4: SRI M' SRINIVAS REDDY' STANDING COUNSEL The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER ,.' ./ .-l THE HONOURABLE SRI JtJSl'ICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE, SRT JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT APPEAL Nos.749 ,,753,754,75 8,759.763, 764,765 &766 of 2025 COMMON JUDGMEN'I': t'per the Llon hle Sn J sttcc l, Sam Koshr) Since this batch of writ appeals are filed chaltenging the common order passed by the Hon'ble Single Bcnch of this Coun, they are taken up for analogous l-rearing and arc. being decided by this Common Judgment.

2. Heard Mr. '['arun G. Reddy, leamed counsel for ttre appellants in Writ Appcal Nos.7il. 754. 76i.7b4.765 and 766 ol 2025; Mr. Avinash Desai, learned Scnio. counsel representing Mr. M.pranav, leamed counsel for the appellants in w.it Appeal Nos.758 and 759 ol 2025, Mr'. Sirgapoor Sahi Recidy, learned counsel lor thc appella,ts in wril Appeal No.749 of 2025, Mr. p.Sri Raghu Ram, lcarned Senior co.,sel representing Mr. G.chandra Sekhar Reddy, learned Standir.rg counsel lor respondent No.2 in writ Appeal Nos.753, 754, 158, 759, 763, 763, 765 and 766 of 2025, Mr. peri prabhakar, learned counsel lor respondent No.4 in Writ Appeal Nos.749, 753 and,754 of 2025 & respondent No.3 in writ Appeal Nos.758 and 759 of 2025. and Mr. S.Rahul Pagc 2 ol 16 \F! I Reddy, learned Special Govemment Pleader, representing leamed Additional Advocate General for the State.

3. The instant batch of wlit appeals have bccn filed by thc appellants assailing the common order dated 11.07.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Single Bench of this Courl in various I.As. those were filed in the respcctive writ petitions seeking lor an interim direction of staying thc effect and operation ol the G.O.Ms.No.26, dated 30.06.2025, issued by the Higher Secondary Education Department ol the Govemment exercising the powers under Section sub-ru [e (v) of Rute 4 ol the Telangana Admission and F-ee Regulatory Comrnittee (for Professional Courses offered in Private Un-aided Professional Institutions) Rules, 2006, stating that for the present academic year 2025-26 the Private Un-Aided Professional Institutions in Telangana State may as ol now charge fees that which was fixed for the earlier academic year 2022-25

4. l'he Hon'ble Single Bench after hearing the various I.As. at length, considcring the principles that are required lor granting of interim reliel lound that, as such, no case ofbalance ofconvenience or irrepalable loss has made out and for deciding the veracity ol the G.O.Ms.No.26, dated 30.06.2025 which is under challenge, a detailed explanation of the case based upon the counters that would be fited by the respondents is required. Meanwhile, wfile refusing to I Page 3 of I6 grant an interim relief, the Hon'ble Single Bench has also directed respondent No.5 in the writ petitions to ensure that sulficient infbrmation is given to the students taking admission that the lees paid by them as of now be subject to the result of the writ petitions and lbr \/v'hich appropriate circular in the official website or any other mode should be pubtished forthwith. The Hon'ble Single Bench directed the respondent No.2 in the writ petitions apprising them of the responsibility and also with a direction that since the proposals submitted by each of the petitioner collegcs lor determining the fees and hearing on those proposals have been held in March, 2025, the process ol- determining the fees be completed within an outer limit olsix (06) weeks lrom the date of the impugned common order passed by the Hon'bte Single Bench.

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants and the other leamed counsel who had advanced their arguments in support of their appeals, tried to impress upon this Bench that thc Hon'ble Single Bench has failed to appreciate the lact that the appellants herein had all made out a prima facie strong case in respect ol the illegality on the part of the Govemment in determining the fees to be collected for the current academic year 2025-26 or for the next block pcriod 2025-28. I t Page4ofl6 /

6.LeamedcounsellortheappellantssubmittedthattheHon,bteSingle Bench lailed to consider the order passed in a similar matter by a co-ordinate Bench,whereininterimprotectionhadbeengranted'This'itwascontended' amounted to a departure lrom judicial propriety' Learned counsel for the appellantsalsoqr"restionedthepowerandjurisdictionofrespondentNo.2sofar as determining the fees for an acadetnic year, which according to the learned counsel, has to be teft wetl within the institutions themselves as has been permittcd by thc Hon'bte Supreme Court in the case of Islamic Academy of I and also in the case of T'M'A' Pai Education vs. Statc of Karnataka Foundation vs. State of Karnataka2'

7. According to the leamed counsel for the appetlants' acceptance of the feesbyrespondentNo.2inthecourscofpersonalhearingwasrecordedinthe registermaintainedintheofficeofrcspondentNo.2andwhereinsignaturesof the appellants were also obtained l{aving done so, the respondent No'2 would not have issued G.O.Ms-No.26 with variation of fees without giving any notice totheappeltantsinrespectofnon-acceptanceofthef.eeswhichwasacceptedin theregistermaintainedbyrespondentNo.2.Further.,thenon-acceptanceofthe ' (zoo:) e scc ost '(zooz) g scc asr ( { [)age 5 ol 16 fees agreed upon by the appellants was perhaps re-considered on 1g.06.2025, on which date it appears that respondent No.2 had held a meeting and passed a resolution which is contrary to the settled principtes of law and also contrary to the mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Courl and, above all, is in breach of the principles of natural justice.

8. It was also the contention of the learned counsel for the appe[ants that as per the terms of the earlier G.O.Ms.No.6, dated 08.01 .2001 , and also the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Islamic Academy of Education (supra), the fees to be determined is always applicable for three years and the notification for a single year lor the academic year 2025-26 is contrary both to the statutory scheme and also the law laid down by the Hon,ble Supreme Court wamanting interfcrence.

9. Atl the leamed counsel lor the appellants also assailed the order of the Hon'ble Single Bench on the ground that the appellants had, primafacie brought to the notice of the Hon'ble single Bench that initially in the course of discussion and deliberation with the respondents, the respondents have accepted the fees which was negotiated upon between the appellants and the respondents. The said series was accepted by the authorities after the appelants had submitted tentative fees by the respective petitioners befbre the authorities lbr Page 6 ol l6 the next academic year. It was contended that after having accepted the fees agreed upon, the respondent No.2 has now taken a somersault and issued the impugned G.O. tn total contravcntion to the rutes, guidelines and also the mandate ofthe l{on'ble Supreme Court.

10. Another ground raised by the learned counsel for the appellants was that the finding of the Hon'ble Single Bench that there seems to be some delay on the part of the appellants in approaching the writ Court is also not correct for the reason that the G.O. under challenge has till date not been uploaded, however, the appellants have somehow obtaincd one copy of the said G.O. on 03.07.2025 and the writ petitions were fi[ed on 10.07.2025. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, the dates itself show the promptness with which the appellants have approached the writ Court questioning the G.O.Ms.No.26 dated

30.06.2025 and sought for an interim relief.

11. Lastly, it r.vas contended that the G.O.Ms.No.26 has been issued without any enabling provision being there under the rules governing the field or in the parent Act and respondent No.lunder no circumstances is empowered ln determining the parameters for fees fixation, nor does the respondent No.1 has the power to even constitute a committee as is reflected in G.O.Ms.No.26 dated

30.06.2025 ( t

12. Per contra, \{r. P.Sri Raghu Ram, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. G.Chandra Sekhar Reddy, leamed Standing Counsel for TARFC for respondent No.2, and all the learned counsels appearing lor other respondents, vehemently opposed these writ appeals on the ground that firstly the writ appeals are filed only against the orders passed by the Hon'ble Single Bench rn somc of the I.As., and as such, there is hardly any scope of interference left with the writ Appellate Court.

13. It was the contention of the leamed Senior Counsel that going through the impugned common order would clearly reflect that the llon'ble Single Bench has threadbare considered all the contcntions which the appellants have raised and upon due consideration reached to the conclusion that those contentions cannot be decided at this juncture. According to the leamed Senior Counsel, the Hon'ble Single Bench held that for deciding these issues, it will be required to enter into the merits of the case and lor deciding the same, counters of the respondents would be necessary and therefore, the dccision of the respondents rvas ordered to be subject to the outcome of the writ petitions with a direction to the respondents to indicate by way of a circular to the students that whatever lees that they are paying as ofnow for the academic year 2025-26would also be subjected to the outcome of the writ petitions Pagc 8 of l6

14. According to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.2, the so-called fees that is reflected in the register maintained by respondent No.2 is not an indication of acceptance of the fees, rather it is only the fees that has been agreed upon by the appellants but was not flnalized or accepted by respondent No.2. It was also contended that subsequent to the proposals having been rcceived, there was a meeting held by respondent No.2 on 18.06.2025, and in the meeting the members have participated and examined the lees proposed by each of the Private Un-aided Institutions for the current block period.

15. According to the leamed Senior Counsel, in the course of examining the fees, the committee observed that there was huge variation with the parameters and therefore, the committee thought ol estabtishing a committee which can go into the minute details of the same and therealter reach to a decision determining the fees for each of the institutions. According to the learned Senior Counsel, this aspect is still to be finalized in the writ petitions as would be clear from the impugned common order itselL Thus, these batch of writ appeals deserve to be dismissed.

16. At the outset, we need to appreciate the scope of interference to the impugned common order while exercising the powers conferred upon this Courl t ( Page 9 of l6 under Section l5 of the Letter patents Act. For ready reference, Section l5 of. the Letter Patents Act is reproduced hereunder, viz., ''Appeal Jrom the Courts of original jurisdiction to the High Court in its appellare jurisdiclion:- Arul vte do further orclain that an appeal sha lie to the suitl High Court oJ Jutlicature at (Madrqs), (Bonbay), (Forr ll/illiam in Bengal) ./iont the judgnent not being a judgment passecl in the excrcise oJ appellate juri:diction ht respect of a clecree or orcler made in the crercise appellate jurisdiction b1. a C)ourt subiect lo the superintenclence o;f the suid ftigh Court trnd not being an order made in lhe exercise of revisioncrl .ltu.rstlict ion, arul not heing u sent(:nce or orcler passecl or made in exerci.se oJ the potrer of \upctinlenderue under tha provislons of Secrion t07 of the Government cf. Indiu .4ct. or irt the exercise of criminal juriscliction of one Jutll4e <tf the said IIi11h ()ourt or one Judge of any Division Court, pursuont losection l0g t{ the (itt'ernnent of India Act' awr that notll)ithstancling anything hereinbefctre provided, an appeol .thatt tie to the sait) High Court.from a juclgment of one .hdgc oJ the said High. Court or one Judge oJ-the Diviston C.ourt, pursuont to Saction 108 ofthe (]ovcrnment of Inttio Act, matle (on or at'tcr the./irs.t dr4, of l' e bruar),. I 929) in Ihe exercise of uppellare jur isdict ion hy. o L.ourt subjeL.t to tht :upet inlendence of the said High Court, u,here the Jutlge n,ho passecl tha .itrtlgntenl declares. tlnt lhe cause is a.fit one fttr appeal, but thar the right o[ Ltppeal.liom otlkr judgmenls of Judges oJ the saitt High Court rtr such Divi.sktn (.'outt shull be /o us. our heirs or successors in our or l.heir t,rivy ()ouncil, as herc inofitr prot,ided. " A bare perusar of the provisions of Section i5 would make it evidentry clear that the said Section envisages the remedy of appeal onry against the jLrdgments decided by a Hon,ble Single Bench of the High Cour1. Page l0 of l6 17' In the said scenario, what needs to be considered is .,whether impugned common order can be treated to be one which courd be brought under the provisions or the Letter patents Act or under the purview oFjudgment as is required under Section l5 of the Letter patents Act?,, 18' An order to be appealabre under crause 15 0r the Letter patents Act should have the traits of a finality of the proceedings and at the same time it should affect the vitar and varuabre rights o. a party. This in other words means that an appeal would be maintainabre only in the evenr. if the order against which the appeal has been filed ca, be brought withi, the purview of a judgment passed by a Hon'ble Singte Bench of the High court. In order ro ascertain the said aspect, we need to look into the observations made by the I,on'ble Single Bench wh,e deciding rhe praycr for granr of interim rerier. For ready reference, the relevant operative portion of thc impugned common order passed by the Hon,blei Single Bench is reproduced hereunder, viz.. "42. It is relevant lo note that as hettl by this C:ourt in lhe aloresaid common interim order that respondent No.Z Committee is an Elire Group consists of eleven (r l) Members incruding Chairmun, n retirecr lrigh Courr Judge ancr othar ten (10) persons, expert.t in variou.s fiekls. Il is aware of the rimelines fixetl by the Apex Court with regard to atlmissions into Engineering and Medicat College.s. It has to consider the proposols submitred by the Cotteges antt determine the fees once in three (03) years. Having received propdsal.s, in December, 2024, having conducting hearings in March, 2025, responclent.N$.2 ( Page l1 of 16 should have nmpleted lhe process of determinalion of./be and sending the sante to respondent .Yo. I be.fora issuance of Admission Schedule by respondent No 5. Admitredl,y. rerltondent No 2 has waited till 18.()6.2025. lJ. lt is also upt to note thdt the petitioners haye also woitetl till 10.07.202j. lrltich is tlta h:t dute J'or exercise of options after veriJication of certificatcs ond .fi'eazing o.f options. The said schedulewas issued on 27 06 2025 by respontlent t\o.5 and intput:tted G.O u,tts issued on 30.06.2025 b1, respondent No l.

14. As rightly contended by leorned counsel for respondent Nos.l and 2 that the oplions night hut'e Jreezed by the Authorities concerned by notv. In the light of the suma, the l)a t it ioners .failed to make out any primafacie case to grant interim order antl thare is no balance of convenience in lheir.fatour. I'he pelitioners contendcd thu in thc event o.f petitioners succeeding in the writ petition, it is not possihle /br th,:m to collect the balonce fee from the students antl, therefore, they ttotrld be put to irreparable loss and injury if the interim orders are not grunted in thcir./ vtur ln the light oJ the said submission, to meel the ends of justice, a direction to rc\ponllent ,\o 5 to inform the students lhat poyment of fee by the stutler s to the petilioner utlleges is subiect resull of the preSent v)ril petitions is stt//it itnt.litr IJre pr('\cnt.

15. Styaral contenlions raised by the pelilioners including lhe conlention thal minutcs d ted 18.06.2025 tf respondent No.2 is contrary to the Rute.s, 2006 require tletuiletl e\omination on filing counters by the respondents. TheteJitrc. uil thc.se Inlerlocutory Applicalions are accordingly tlispo.setl of holtlirry thut Vt it petitioners are not enlitled lor lhe interim relief as sought by thent in the afitresuid L.ls. Hou,ever, respondent No.5 is directcd to inform the sttrdents Ihul tlte -fee paitl by rhem to the pelitioner instilutbns i.\ subject to lhe result of presettt vtit petilions by placing appropriate Circulor in its OlJicial LIlebsite or any other Mode. Page 12 of l6 Respondenl No.2 shatl complete lhe entire exercise of considercttion oJ' proposals submilled by the petitioners, determine the fee and send it to re spttrulent No.l within six (06) wee ks .from today "

19. Now from the aloresaid contents of the impugned common order passed bytheHon'blesingteBench,wencedtolookintothemeritsaspccts'Froma ptain reading of the operative paragraph ol the impugned common order' reproducedabove,whatisreflectedisthat,itisnotanorderwhichcanbesaid to have been attained finality. Rather, the finding which is reflected is that the Contcntionsraisedbytheappellantsareonewhichwouldhavetobeconsidered aftercountcrsarefiledbytherespondentsandthosecountersneedtobe Scrutinizedbeforereachingtoanyconclusion.Thisitselfisasufficient indication of the impugned common order not being conclusive'

20.AnotheraspectwhichneedstobeconsideredisthatthcHon,bleSingle Rcnch has not decided the question of lau. the issues in controversy' the objections pertaining to the competence and jurisdiction of the respondents' andalso whether the authority concemedcould have issued such a G.O. In the absence of any decision or conclusive finding given by the Hon'ble Single Bench. tl.re order in itself cannot be said to be a judgment within the meaning of Section 15 of the l-etter Patents Act Letter Patents appeal' in itself, does not mean it could challenge any order passed by a Hon'ble Singlc Bench on ( Page l3 ol 16 Interlocutory Applications. Rather, an appeal would be ,.raintainable only against thosc orders *herc the issues get decided and such decision on the issues would advcrsely alfect the vital and valuable rights ol the parties, and which can cause selious injustice to the party concemed.

21. At the same time, il we look into the impugned common order it would clearly give an indication that the Hon'ble Single Bench has in fact granted some protection to thc claim of the appellants as well. The Hon'ble Single Bench has rnade a clear observation that the respondents sha take steps by issuing circular intimating the students taking admission that whatever fees that they pay would be tenrarive fees subject to the outcome of the writ petitions. This in other words rneans that, ultimately in the event writ petitions are allowcd by the llon'ble Single l3ench, the appellants would be at libefty ro charge the diflercnce of f-ees tiorn students. 22, Yet another aspect w'hich needs to be considered is that respondent No.2 / The Telangana Ad,rission and Fee Regulatory commission, in fact, had called upon the proposals submitted by the appellants and similarly placed other institutions and the said proposals are pending consideration before respondent No.2 and the IJon'ble Single Bench in the operative part arso directed respondent No.2 to complete the entire exercise on due consideration of the f t Page I4 ol l6 proposals submitted by the appellants determining the fees and to send it to respondent No.I within six (06) weeks. This again is a sultrcient indication ol the issues which have been raised by the appellants still to be inconclusive and whatever proposals have been submitted is yet to be scrutinized by the said committee.

23. Anothcr aspect which needs appreciation is the lact that once when the Hcn'ble Single Bench having categorically made obser-vation directing the respondent No.2 to complete the process of determination ol lees within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of the impugned common order being passcd keeping ir.r view the timeline given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for closing ol the admissions, it would not be proper at this juncture for the Division Bench to sit over the said order passed by the Hon'ble Single Bench and threadbare consider whether the Hon'ble Single Bencl.r was justihed in refusing grant of interim relief.

24. As has been rightly observed by the Hon'bte Single Bench that lor determination of fees, the writ Court would not be the appropriate forum as there are various parameters which needs to be physically examined before finalizing the fees. These parameters and principles require examinati on of the paramcters and facilities being provided by each of the institutions, again are ( -t Page l5 of l6 within the puNiew of the technical expeft in the field and it cannot be decided in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of the High court under Article 226 of the Constitution ol India

25. Yet another aspect which necds to be delved into is that, the nature of interim relief which the appcllants are seeking lor is,in itsetf the final relief and it is well settled proposition ol law that final relief cannot be and should not be passed by way ol interim orders. [&ether respondent No. I had the power to issue notification. rvhether there was in fact earlier determination of fees carried out by respondent No.2 and rvhich also stood approved in their register, are all matters which shall be considered by the Hon'ble Single Bench while deciding the matter on nierits. If Lhcse issues are decided while considering the Interlocutory Applications itsell,rhcre 'uvill not be anything left to be adjudicated in the writ petitions finally.

26. For all the afbresaid reasons, we have no hesitation in reaching to the conclusion that since the impugned comrnon order under challenge is not one where any issues have been t'inalized or any right stands crystallized in favour of any of the parlies, in our vie,,v, the said impugned common order is not assailable under c'lause l5 of the Lettcr patents Act. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the finding given by the Hon,ble Single Bench is not I I I l i 1 .j one which warrants interference, and these batch of writ appeals thus being devoidolmerit,deservetobeandaccordinglydismissed.Nocosts.

21. As a seq uel, ntiscellaneous petitions pending if any' shall stand closed SD/-P. G OWRI SHANKAR D PU TY REGISTRA R //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To, HYderabad [OUT]

1. One CC to SRI SIRGAPOOR SAHIL REDDY' Advocate IOPUCI ? Two CCs to the Advocate General High Court for the State of Telangana at 3. One CC to SRI G CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY' Standing Counsel IOPUCI 4. One CC to SRI A P SURESH KUMAR' Standing Counsel IOPUCI 5. One CC to SRI PERI PRABHAKAR' Standing Counsel IOPUC] 6 One CC to SRI TARUN G REDDY' Advocate IOPUCI 7. One CC to SRI M PRANAV' Advocate IOPUCI 8. One CC to SRI tvl. SRINIVAS REDDY' Standing Counsel IOPUCI tW 9. Two CD CoPies MP BS t t1 HIGH COURT DATED:2510712A25 1HE Sr. ({/ 22 AUE 26 ?\ ,P, ott /' :-,..' COMMON JUDGMENT W.A. Nos,74g, 753, 754, 758,759, 763, 764, 765 & 766 of 2025 DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEALS WITHOUT COSTS $